Do you have the option of attending a parish that is in keeping with your understanding of Abuse-Free and Liturgically-Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peeps
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
semper_catholicus said:
Again, I haven’t attended mass at every parish in my diocese. The biggest ones are the use of liturgically innapropriate instruments for the music in the Liturgy (not all but many) and the use of EMHCs when they are not warranted. Just to be clear, I’m not about to enter into a debate about it.
Click to expand...
OK, so not actual abuses. Just things not to your preference. That’s a bit different.
 
They are actual abuses my friend. And remember the title of this thread.
 
The determination of whether too many EMHCs are being used is not left to the people in the pews. So, no, not an actual abuse. And I’d be curious which instruments you believe constitute actual abuse.
 
When the norms laid out in Canon Law for the use of EMHCs are laid out and are not being followed, that is an abuse. I’m not going to discuss this further.
 
vsedriver said:
I don’t go to Mass for the music, for the quality of the liturgy, for the use or non use of Lain, for how people dress, where they chat or for the sermon.

I go to Mass to worship God and to partake in the Eucharist. I bring my joy with me. None of the above even registers with me.
Click to expand...
I wish more people had your attitude.

My own Mass-going habits are very often driven by when I can get a Mass into my daily work or travel schedule. I do like to go check out different types of Mass and different liturgies from Catholic churches in communion with Rome. So far I’ve been to TLM, Syro-Malabar, Melkite, charismatic, and Ordinariate as well as regular OF Mass. I will probably go to the Byzantine church soon because I met a nice Byzantine man at my Latin Rite parish who is in the Knights of Columbus and was there doing a ceremony, and he told me all about his church and I’d like to go. I’ve heard music all over the map as well, and celebrated in a number of languages not my own, and seen every form of church architecture still in existence.

But it’s not because I don’t like what’s going on back in my regular church. I like to see the variety of ways people worship God. It’s heartening.
 
Last edited:
True. But every priest really should remind the congregation biblically that the sanctuary is for silent reflection not to catch up in the week together out loud.
 
I’ve attended mass at the basilica in St. John’s once, and glass ‘chalices’ were used. Basilica + glass vessels + Canada + Indian reservation = Newfoundland. Dead giveaway.

Pleasure to meet a fellow Atlantic Canadian.
 
Last edited:
You do understand that these are your preferences and not at all actual abuses, right?
 
And you do understand that these, though may be my preferences, constitute abuses, right?
 
As far as I recall, Canon Law does not discuss the use of EMHC. The GIRM does and gives much latitude to the Ordinary of the diocese in establishing norms.
Also, the Pastor of a parish has some latitude in how he does things for the good of his particular parish.

So again, no real abuses, just things you don’t particularly like.
 
Canon Law does discuss it. Where in the GIRM does it say that latitude is given to the Ordinary with regards to EMHCs?
 
If people were as concerned with their soul as they are with whether or not things are liturgical abuse or not then we’d all be saints
 
This is what the GIRM (not canon law) says about EMHC. It is not up to the person in the pew to determine if the priest is sufficiently incapacitated, or the crowd sufficiently large, to call on EMHC to assist in the orderly and reverent distribution of Holy Communion. The priest makes the determination – the bishop determines the guidelines for EMHC in his diocese.

"When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons. If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, “the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may also depute suitable faithful for this single occasion (GIRM 162).”

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should receive sufficient spiritual, theological, and practical preparation to fulfill their role with knowledge and reverence. In all matters they should follow the guidance of the diocesan bishop ( Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America , NDRHC, no. 28). When recourse is had to Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, especially in the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord. In all matters such Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should follow the guidance of the diocesan bishop (IBID)."
 
Canon Law was something similar.

These guidelines are not being followed in many parishes I’ve attended in my diocese in the last couple years. It’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning; the guidelines are not being followed.
 
So the priests in these parishes are not making these decisions? How does that manifest itself?
 
Still the priest’s call. There’s not a specific ratio that must be followed. For example, if the next Mass is a short time after the dismissal from this Mass, the need for EMHC might be greater.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top